What's the big deal about the KJV Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Startingcatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Startingcatholic

Guest
I’ve seen a lot of stuff around talking about how the KJV Bible is the only true Bible it’s very confusing and scary and I don’t know what to do.
 
We don’t go around saying “thee” or “thou” anymore and the first Christians did not talk like that either, so why would anyone want to use that particular edition? Plus, the KJV is missing parts of the Canon of Scriptures and that is another reason not to use it.
 
Last edited:
Some large number of Protestants say the KJV is the only accurate translation. The Catholic Church does not say anything like that.

If you are a Catholic you do not need to worry about what some Protestant says about this. Find a good Catholic translation and use that.

Personally I recommend the second Ignatius Edition
 
Startingcatholic said:
I’ve seen a lot of stuff around talking about how the KJV Bible is the only true Bible it’s very confusing and scary and I don’t know what to do.
Click to expand...
There are some Christians who are “KJV-only-ists”. The reason is because they believe that the KJV is the most pure translation of the Scriptures, all others having flaws or man-induced errors in translation. (Once in a blue moon you’ll run across someone who actually thinks it’s the original Bible…but this is rare.)
In reality, it’s got its own translation problems here and there, and the language is outdated, as mentioned above.
You can search the internet for many articles about it, some heavily biased, some not so much. Interestingly, the original release, in 1611, contained the books of the OT that Luther deemed uncanonical. They were not removed from protestant Bibles until sometime later, when a printing press printing the protestant Bibles simply stopped printing those “apocryphal” books.
 
Odilon said:
We don’t go around saying “thee” or “thou” anymore and the first Christians did not talk like that either, so why would anyone want to use that particular edition?
Click to expand...
So we should also throw out the Douay - Rheims? And, since, we don’t talk ecclesiastical Greek much anymore, nor Latin, should we throw out the Vulgate, or the Septuagint…if we do that, it throws many of the teachings of the Apostle Paul and Church Fathers and Doctors into question.

As far as not containing the complete Canon, that does not mean the books that do exist are suspect.
 
Odilon said:
We don’t go around saying “thee” or “thou” anymore and the first Christians did not talk like that either, so why would anyone want to use that particular edition? Plus, the KJV is missing parts of the Canon of Scriptures and that is another reason not to use it.
Click to expand...
Actually, the first Christians did use the equivalents of “thee” and “thou”, but they were a natural, normal part of their own languages (2nd person singular). Older English translations that use “thee” and “thou” actually assist modern readers in differentiating between when only one person is being spoken to and when more than one person is being spoken to, as in Luke 22:31-32.

All that said, my translation of preference for general use in the NKJV, and for Catholic use, the RSV-CE.

D
 
Have seen lots of KJV only arguments. They are logical fallacies that typically try to make the translation of the scriptures, the equivalent of the scriptures themselves even going to far at times as to say the original text is incorrect where it departs from the KJV. I wouldn’t get too worried about it.
 
There are also some misguided Catholics who believe that St Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translation is the only true Bible and the Douay-Rheims Bible is its only true English translation. Such beliefs are contrary to the Catholic faith.
 
Don’t let those King-James-only enthusiasts worry you about your choice of Bible. Also don’t try to argue with them about it. Rather, look for common ground in other aspects of Christianity, like faith, hope, and love. If KJV helps them to live as good Christians, praise the Lord!
 
It isn’t about good or bad or right or wrong. It’s about the beauty of language. Some KJV verses read a lot like poetry, and then you look at the New American Bible Revised, and everything is reduced to simple declarative sentences. Maybe written with the average seventh grader in mind. All the beauty and poetry are gone.
 
DaveBj said:
40.png
Odilon:
We don’t go around saying “thee” or “thou” anymore and the first Christians did not talk like that either, so why would anyone want to use that particular edition? Plus, the KJV is missing parts of the Canon of Scriptures and that is another reason not to use it.
Click to expand...
Actually, the first Christians did use the equivalents of “thee” and “thou”, but they were a natural, normal part of their own languages (2nd person singular). Older English translations that use “thee” and “thou” actually assist modern readers in differentiating between when only one person is being spoken to and when more than one person is being spoken to, as in Luke 22:31-32.
Click to expand...
Actually the loss of thee and thine is worse. The word You always could mean, you plural, but also could mean You, singular stranger or mere acquaintance - as compared to Thou, my family member or good friend.

Anyway, the fact that a few fanatic supporters mislabel what the KJV is should not blind us to the magnificent resource it actually is. Most modern translations look like they came out of a word processor, with no memorable language at all.
 
Heard of Douay Rheims? That’s used today. It has thees and thous
 
Last edited:
Odilon said:
We don’t go around saying “thee” or “thou” anymore
Click to expand...
Neither did the translators of the King James Bible. Read the preface. The “thees” and “thous” serve a translational purpose of signifying the differences of singular and plural and person perspective (first, second and third). The English of the day of 1611 (and previous) didn’t speak like God’s word does. It is a higher level of language, more refined, in the Bible.

For instance:

John 3:7 KJB Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.

Jesus was speaking personally to Nicodemus (thee, singular), but stated that all the Pharisees, yea all the Jews (Ye, plural) needed to be borne again, not just Nicodemus.

However, modern so-called translations generally are vague at this point:

John 3:7 NKJV - 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’

Yet even the ‘NIV’ footnote understands that there is a difference:

7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[a] must be born again.’
  1. John 3:7 The Greek is plural.
Also as others have said, the Jesuit Douay Rheims also has “thees” - # SEARCH thee and “thous” - # SEARCH thou but it isn’t perfect, and makes the same translational vaguery in John 3:7 as other modern translations do:

John 3:7 DRB - Wonder not, that I said to thee, you must be born again.

Just an odd choice considering that the DRB attempted to copy the KJB in certain styles of translation.

The King James Bible that I hold in my hand is the preserved (Psalms 12:6-7; Deuteronomy 8:3; Proverbs 30:5; Matthew 4:4; Luke 4:4; Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33) word of God in English. Materials come and go (Exodus 32:19; Deuteronomy 9:17; Jeremiah 36:23, 51:63), but God preserved His word to this very day. There are many resources, books, videos that may be of assistance to you in your personal search. Advice, be willing to go where the truth of evidence leads, not where any man says.
 
Last edited:
I never said we should throw out any of those versions as they have historical significance. I merely posed the question of why anyone would want to use them since we no longer talk that way.
 
Yep. Same thing I was taught at the Baptist church I attended growing up as well.
 
I’m KJV - ever since I was 18 or so…
Before that I was the Good News Bible - lol - quite a jump.
I’m a poet type believer - and so I just love the flow -
the melody of the words -
47 scholars worked on it - verse by verse - imagine !

I never hear the Bible quoted chapter and verse by Catholics.
I like that - a lot.
I believe getting the vibe - or mood - of what’s being said -
Instead of EXACTLY - each word - what’s said.
 
So you quote the Bible chapter and verse - that’s nice. And along with that the only thing you are doing is giving us your interpretation of it, which is many times out of sync with the Church’s.
 
Shasta-Rose said:
It isn’t about good or bad or right or wrong. It’s about the beauty of language. Some KJV verses read a lot like poetry, and then you look at the New American Bible Revised, and everything is reduced to simple declarative sentences. Maybe written with the average seventh grader in mind. All the beauty and poetry are gone.
Click to expand...
This.

It’s not my preferred translation for individual study, but it’s great when it’s used for the readings in a rite I Episcopal service, which is full of its sort of grand old English.
 
It has some beautiful English praising of certain verses, but no way no how is it the “only true bible.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top